Network meta-analysis on the comparative effectiveness and safety of transcatheter aortic valve implantation with CoreValve or Sapien devices versus surgical replacement.

INTRODUCTION: Surgical replacement for aortic stenosis is fraught with complications in high-risk patients. Transcatheter techniques may offer a minimally invasive solution, but their comparative effectiveness and safety is uncertain. We performed a network meta-analysis on this topic. METHODS: Randomized trials on transcatheter aortic valve replacement vs surgery were searched. The primary outcome was all cause death. Risk estimates were obtained with Bayesian network meta-analytic methods. RESULTS: Four trials with 1,805 patients were included. After a median of 8 months, risk of death and myocardial infarction was not different when comparing surgery versus transcatheter procedures, irrespective of device or access. Conversely, surgery was associated with higher rates of major bleeding (odds ratio vs CoreValve=3.03 [95% credible interval: 2.23-4.17]; odds ratio vs transfemoral Sapien =1.82 [1.21-2.70]; odds ratio vs transapical Sapien =2.08 [1.20-3.70]), and acute kidney injury (odds ratio vs CoreValve =2.08 [1.33-3.32]; odds ratio vs transapical Sapien =2.78 [2.21-99.80]), but lower rates of pacemaker implantation (odds ratio vs CoreValve =0.41 [0.28-0.59]), and moderate or severe aortic regurgitation (odds ratio vs CoreValve =0.06 [0.02-0.27]; odds ratio vs Sapien=0.17 [0.02-0.76]). Strokes were less frequent with CoreValve than with transfemoral Sapien (odds ratio =0.32 [0.13-0.73]) or transapical Sapien (odds ratio =0.33 [0.10-0.93]), whereas pacemaker implantation was more common with CoreValve (odds ratio vs surgery =2.46 [1.69-3.61]; odds ratio vs transfemoral Sapien =2.22 [1.27-3.85]). CONCLUSIONS: Survival after transcatheter or surgical aortic valve replacement is similar, but there might be differences in the individual safety and effectiveness profile between the treatment strategies and the individual devices used in transcatheter aortic valve implantation.

Serial motion assessment by reference tracking (SMART): application to detection of local functional impact of chronic myocardial ischemia.

PURPOSE: To compare measurements of wall motion and thickening with and without correcting for cardiac twisting and shortening. METHOD: Inversion recovery Gd-DPTA perfusion and cine motion MRI were performed on 12 pigs with chronic ischemia induced by ameroid occluder. Analyses were based on conventional fixed plane imaging and serial motion assessment by reference tracking (SMART). RESULTS: Normal motion was 31.3 +/- 1.9%, and normal wall thickening was 41.4 +/- 2.2%. At the maximum perfusion defect, SMART wall motion was 10.5 +/- 2.4% and fixed wall motion was 20.6 +/- 1.7% (p < 0.004), SMART wall thickening was 20.1 +/- 4.4%, and fixed wall thickening was 32 +/- 1.9% (p < 0.03). CONCLUSION: SMART measurements of wall thickening and motion detect much smaller thickening and motion in ischemic myocardium than fixed radial metrics. SMART data, covering the entire heart, should prove twice as sensitive to abnormalities in motion and thickening, such as any produced by ischemic heart disease or improved by treatment.